R (A) v General Medical Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE CHARLES,Mr Justice Charles |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 880 (Admin) |
| Date | 26 April 2004 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/5843/2002 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2004] EWHC 880 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Charles
Case No: CO/5843/2002
David Wolfe (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the Applicant
Thomas de la Mare (instructed by General Medical Council solicitors) for the Respondent
Introduction
This is an application for judicial revue by Miss A acting by her litigation friend and father. Miss A was born on 23 May 1985, she is now 18. The Respondent is the General Medical Council (the GMC).
The decision that is the subject of challenge is one made by the Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) of the GMC on 22 September 200That decision was that a Dr Cheetham was not guilty of serious professional misconduct. The hearing before the PCC flowed from a complaint made by Miss A's parents. That complaint was considered first by the Professional Proceedings Committee (the PPC) of the GMC. Miss A's parents were represented before the PCC. As I understand it the costs of that representation were met by the GMC, who formally remained the body bringing the charge against Dr Cheetham before the PCC, but the practical effect of that representation was that through it Miss A's parents presented and pursued the charge of serious professional misconduct heard by the PCC. I shall therefore refer to submissions being made to the PCC on their behalf although formally they were made on behalf of the GMC.
The terms of the charge of professional misconduct heard and determined by the PCC, and the matters relied on in respect of it, were formulated by the GMC after consultation with the lawyers acting for the parents (and the GMC as the formal prosecutor). This was therefore a case in which the parents of Miss A played a central role in formulating the charge and allegations that Dr Cheetham had to meet and thus the issues before the PCC.
Dr Cheetham has taken part in these proceedings but after permission had been granted he "bowed out" on the basis of an exchange of correspondence in October 2003 between the solicitors acting for the Applicant who confirmed that "we will not ask for the case to be remitted back to the GMC". Since then Dr Cheetham has taken no part in the proceedings but has been copied the papers therein.
On the first day of the hearing there was some confusion as to whether the Applicant was seeking an order quashing the decision of the PCC given (a) the arrangement reached with Dr Cheetham, and (b) the stated wish of Miss A and her parents that they would not seek (and as I understood it did not want there to be) another hearing before the PCC. The problem identified in the skeleton arguments was that it seemed that the Applicant was still seeking a quashing order and if such an order was to be made it would be the Professional Practice Committee of the GMC (the PPC) who decided whether there should be further proceedings before the PCC of the GMC. The correspondence pursuant to which Dr Cheetham "bowed out" refers to the GMC (rather than to either or both the PPC and the PCC) and to my mind understandably the leading counsel who had acted for Dr Cheetham before the PCC wrote to the court and the parties inviting the court to hear him (on behalf of Dr Cheetham) on remedy. That leading counsel attended in court as an observer on the afternoon of the first day of the hearing.
On the morning of the second day counsel for the Applicant told me that he was no longer seeking a quashing order. In my view he and his clients were right to take this decision. Also, and in my view correctly, he considerably modified the declaration sought in written submissions. However counsel for the Applicant maintained his submission that the PCC had erred in law and that as there had been some general interest and comment on the decision of the PCC and the issues raised by, or underlying, this case I should make a finding as to this submission of error of law and a declaration. His assertion of some general interest was based on some coverage of this case in the press and in discussion shown to me in print outs from a BMJ webpage, but both the BMA and the Secretary of State were served with these proceedings and have indicated that they do not wish to take part. I shall return to this.
I should add at this stage that I have sympathy with the submissions made on behalf of the GMC that (a) it has not been clear from the judicial review form and the lengthy skeleton argument put in on behalf of the Applicant what her case is, and (b) she is now seeking to advance arguments that differ from those in respect of which permission to issue the proceedings was given. However in my view counsel for the GMC was correct not to pursue an argument under CPR Part 54.15 that the Applicant should be refused permission to rely on additional grounds.
As will appear later in my judgment there is a short answer to this application for judicial review on the basis that the issues before the PCC did not raise the points relating to (a) the effect Miss A's parents wishes and instructions that Dr Cheetham should not be involved, and (b) duties of confidence, which it was argued before me give rise to points of general interest and warranted declaratory relief initially in a wide form and later in a limited form. But as they were argued I propose to deal with them.
Some background
Miss A's illness
Happily Miss A is now reasonably well. Over the period leading up to and during the time that the acts of Dr Cheetham that were the subject of the proceedings before the PCC took place (June 1997 to the end of July 1999) this was not the case and Miss A was seriously unwell. The reason for this was that she was suffering from what I, like others, shall for convenience call ME.
There are a number of descriptions of the symptoms of Miss A's illness in the papers. The following account is set out in a witness statement of her solicitor dated 28 January 2003. I quote:
"Miss A was born on 23 May 1985 and became ill over the year from the summer of 1996 until approximately June 1997, aged 12. At that time she was a pupil at the local primary school, where she played netball and enjoyed choir and orchestra.
Apart of these events, Miss A had had a normal, healthy childhood, with no unusual or relevant hospital admissions and few, out of the usual visits, to her general practitioner.
As early as November 1996 Dr Earley a consultant paediatrician at the claimant's local hospital, Wycombe General Hospital had given Miss A and her parents an oral diagnosis at consultation that Miss A had ME.
By June 1997 Miss A was bedridden. She was bedridden because she was in constant physical pain. She was confined to bed for 24 hours a day. She ached physically in every part of her body. Her muscles ached, her eyes ached, it hurt to listen and her head ached so that she was unable to concentrate. By her own instruction she moaned and whined a lot. She could not hold conversations.
From the age of 12 she was confined to bed with what was diagnosed to her as a physical condition without the ability to read, to watch television, to listen to the radio or to music or to hold conversations of any meaningful nature. She could not move from the bed, so she did nothing at all for two whole years. She did not go out, she did not go downstairs in the family home, as moving was so excruciatingly painful. She could not even walk to the bathroom, and her parents and other carers toiletted and bathed her in bed. She did not develop bedsores because she moved around in pain so constantly, as no position was really comfortable for her.
At the time that Dr Cheetham came to see her in June 1997 Miss A was seriously ill, but able to comprehend different types of treatment. She is clear that she wanted to remain at home with her parents in the face of an understanding that Doctor Cheetham wished her to be admitted as an in-patient at hospital for 'treatment'. She was however, in no position at all, to do other than convey these views to her parents unless someone was at her bedside. Muscular pain made it too painful to write or type, but she could make her views known.
From about the age of 14, in mid 1999, Miss A was gradually able to read again and to converse and thus communicate more fully. However she remained physically ill and totally bedridden, but she was able to participate in conversations with her parents and other visitors."
As that statement shows from June 1997 when she was 12, to mid 1999 when she was 14, Miss A was bedridden at home.
Professor Sir David Michael Baldock Hall has prepared a statement for the purposes of these proceedings. At the time he did so he was President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. His statement has been approved by his successor, the current President. Commenting on the account of Miss A's health given by her solicitor, Professor Hall says:
"As I understand it this child had been, according to the witness statement of Miss Swaine [her solicitor], bedridden from June 1997, unable to hold conversations. She could do nothing at all for two years and movement was so painful that she did not go downstairs in the family home. She was unable to read again or to converse between June 1997 and mid-1999 and even after this stage she was physically ill and totally bedridden. This is a child about whom I and I suspect the overwhelming majority of paediatricians would have been profoundly concerned....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R ( Campbell) v General Medical Council
...had been made. However, as we have explained, the jurisdiction exercised in the present case was most unusual. In R (A) v GMC [2004] EWHC 880 Admin, the only previous known case of proceedings by way of judicial review from a decision of the Committee to acquit the medical practitioner, the......
- Saha v General Medical Council